Paul Sweeney
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“The single point of contact pilots that we have embarked on are making a significant difference in ensuring that people get the ability to discuss their treatment anxieties and their support. We have invested £2.5 million to expand the reach of that programme across Scotland.”
“As a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I welcome the news on the proposed legislation, which is very welcome. Indeed, it is something that has been long hoped for.”
“It is more precise than conventional radiotherapy, and the team behind the trial in England has begun the process of establishing it in Scotland.”
“I thank Mesothelioma UK for continuing to raise awareness each year through action mesothelioma day. On 3 July, the Scottish Government will proudly show our support by lighting up in blue St Andrew’s house and Victoria Quay in Edinburgh to get behind the go blue for meso campaign.”
“There is an awful lot to be recognised in terms of holding people to account, which has been a feature of this campaign over time. The Scottish Government confirms its commitment to continue to stand alongside those who are affected by mesothelioma, to ensure that they receive the compassionate care and treatment that they require at ever…”
“The fact that there are such abandoned factories and that the people who enter them—whether for urban exploration or whatever else—do not understand the risks that they are exposing themselves to is a difficulty that we must overcome.”
The complete record
Every one of 813 lines we hold for Paul Sweeney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 17.
“Also mentioned was the issue of places and nursing shortages in care homes, and the pressure that that places on primary and secondary care in the NHS. Sandesh Gulhane: Does Paul Sweeney agree that those pressures create moral injury, which affects our staff, who feel burnt out then just leave? Paul Sweeney: That was recognised across parties. It is a massive issue. However, the Government has not expressed the vigour that we would want in its addressing of that. The sickness and absence rate across NHS Scotland has risen to 6.4 per cent, but we know that it is much higher in nursing, at more than 7 per cent across Scotland. To have that level of absenteeism across the NHS, due to that moral injury, burnout and sense of hopelessness—not to mention the mental health impacts that it has on staff—is atrocious.”
“Not only do we have a huge vacancy issue in the NHS, we have a vicious cycle of dependency on agency nursing and the costs of that to the NHS. Even within the inflow, there is pressure on nursing students. Brian Whittle made an excellent point about looking at directly paid training courses through an apprenticeship programme such as we might have in the police or the armed forces. Neil Gray: Last year, the agency nursing spend in Scotland was £94 million, which was down by 62 per cent. Would Paul Sweeney care to welcome that? Paul Sweeney: I certainly welcome any improvement, but huge amounts of waste are still involved, and we need to tackle that vigorously. That is a massive issue, which we need to address.”
“The competition ratios have got worse in the past few years. The average is five people chasing one specialty training post. The disappointment rate is too much, and it has come about because the number of posts has flatlined while demand has increased. It feels as though the plug is out of the bath; simply turning the tap on to a faster flow will not solve the problem if there is no investment in those specialty training posts. The irony is that, at the other end of the process, there is an increasing outflow of consultancy positions. We hear from the consultants that more and more of them are looking to leave the NHS or reduce their hours. At both ends of the system, therefore, there is incoherence at the heart of the issue that we are facing. It applies not just to doctors but nurses, as was ably put by speakers in the debate.”
“Of our junior doctors, 10 per cent said that they were planning to locum extensively, introducing even more waste into the national health service. Further, 11 per cent said that they were applying for medical jobs abroad. An 11 per cent bleed rate overseas is not good enough. There needs to be a much greater effort to stem that flow. When it comes to the NHS, we do not have an immigration crisis, we have an emigration crisis—to Australia—which is endemic. Almost all of my university peer group who were medical students are in Australia or New Zealand right now. That is not just anecdotal; it is met by the data. People are disappointed that they do not have the opportunity to get their first-choice training post, and they are going overseas while they have the opportunity to do so before settling down.”
“which will report on the planned dialogue, alongside an analysis of workforce demand and supply, by the end of 2025”. It does not feel as though there is a sense of urgency in Government, or a sense of grip. That is why we lodged today’s motion for debate, which comprises fairly scandalous data from BMA Scotland. For example, seven in 10 resident doctors who responded to the survey were concerned about possible unemployment. When surveyed on the issue of applying successfully for specialty training, most people said that they had not been able to get their desired job and 27 per cent said that they applied for specialty training unsuccessfully. Of those applying for clinical development new fellow roles, 34 per cent were successful, and just 19 per cent of those who applied for a locally employed doctor position did so successfully.”
“That was not defensive—it was about opening up and seeking to reach out to find consensus and a way forward. Paul Sweeney: That is all well and good, but we need leadership from the health secretary in Scotland, not simply further commentary on the matter. I take the point, and I will give the health secretary the benefit of the doubt with regard to his willingness to build consensus. However, although he claimed in response to my colleague Ms Lennon that there is a workforce plan—which we have been calling for, for years—if we inspect the Government amendment, the reality is that it is about a “commitment to develop future workforce planning in response to the forthcoming population health and service renewal frameworks ...”
“It is a pleasure to close for Labour in today’s debate. Having listened to the debate, I am not sure what the Government’s goal is. It seems that its instinct is to be defensive rather than to recognise an open scandal in our national health service. When discussing the issues with clinicians and doctors, junior doctors in particular, across Scotland, it is raised as a recurring and persistent matter. It does not seem that the tone of the debate—certainly from the Government benches—has been remotely concerned with that reality and the lived experience of our constituents or our medical professionals. Neil Gray: I wonder whether Paul Sweeney reflected on my conclusion and my closing remarks, which were far from defensive. They were an opening to further talks and discussions about how we can reflect on the issues and build consensus.”
“We absolutely want a bright future for Ferguson Marine. We want it to win contracts. However, that has to happen in a way that is above legal reproach.”
“The project issues with the Glen Rosa are well rehearsed, but does the cabinet secretary recognise that the fundamental problem is the insufficient volume of work that is going through Ferguson Marine? It is carrying an overhead and has not enough demand signal. What is the cabinet secretary doing to reform public procurement to include social value clauses, so that we can get more shipbuilding work through public procurement contracts? Shona Robison: Paul Sweeney has highlighted an important issue, although it is quite a difficult one, as he will be well aware. Under public procurement rules, direct awards are possible only in very strict and limited circumstances. Public procurement rules cannot just be set aside; there are rules and laws and, potentially, legal challenge governing the way in which those rules are applied.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its policy to not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions in order that Scottish Enterprise can reconsider the eligibility of the £2.5 million grant funding towards the £11 million investment in a new naval welding centre on the Clyde, led by Rolls-Royce. (S6O-04771)”
“Amendment 68 will require Scottish ministers to make regulations to ensure that community care services provided to a person with a disability are at least equivalent to those of the previous local authority area when they move to a new local authority area.”
“I thank the minister for her collegiate manner in discussing the amendments. We agree on the intent behind them all, but it was a question of ensuring that the amendments’ technical functions were correct. I also extend my thanks to her civil servants for their helpful involvement in drafting the amendments and getting them into the right place so that we can build consensus across the chamber. That was important, because the amendments’ effects reflect what we heard throughout the bill’s committee stage about the lived experience of many people in Scotland. I am sure that the casework of many members will contain similar experiences of disabled constituents who had care packages but had to move between local authorities.”
“Richard Lochhead: As I said previously, the Scottish Government has allocated £45 million of public support through enterprise agencies to the defence sector in Scotland since we came to office. That is an illustration of the value that we attach to that very important sector. The Scottish Government’s long-standing principle that we should not fund the manufacturing of munitions has been in place for a number of years, so Scottish Enterprise and other enterprise companies have to look at each application on its merits. In this case, Scottish Enterprise took the decision that the application does not align with Scottish Government policy, as I have outlined. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical questions. Point of Order 14:15”
“The minister will be aware that the Scottish Government, through Scottish Enterprise, recently grant funded BAE Systems’ applied shipbuilding skills academy in Scotstoun to the tune of half a million pounds. That project is similar to the marine welding project run by Rolls-Royce and the University of Strathclyde, and I do not see how the latter can be assessed any differently. In that spirit, will the minister undertake to conduct discussions with the UK Government, and with Rolls-Royce Submarines and the University of Strathclyde directly, to get this investment back on track? I have been told directly by the investors that this decision is sending a toxic signal about investment in advanced manufacturing in the Glasgow area.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what work Social Security Scotland is undertaking to improve its communication with applicants for child disability payment. (S6O-04731)”
“We are happy to support the motion, and I hope that all members will join Labour in supporting our amendment to call for better data collection for those who are removed from CAMHS waiting lists. I move amendment S6M-17670.1, to insert at end: “, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish data on the number of patients with neurodevelopmental conditions who are being removed from CAMHS waiting lists.” 16:20”
“In Glasgow, we have seen waiting times increase, vital services such as the Notre Dame Centre for children being shut, and more and more responsibilities being placed on the shoulders of teachers and school counsellors to fill the gaps that have been left by funding shortfalls and by a more general deprioritisation of mental health, which we have seen through the cuts to the integration joint boards and health and social care partnerships. That is simply not good enough, and it is not good enough for ministers to shirk responsibility for the consequences of these funding cuts and place it a local authority level. It is right that the Parliament recognises the mental health crisis that is presided over by the Government and calls for urgent action by that Government to take place quickly.”
“We therefore need to see a step change in how the Scottish Government collects its data so that the statistics reflect the experience on the ground and are not just a contrived mathematical construct that allows ministers to say, “Job well done,” and ignore the unacceptable reality that is faced by our constituents and is reflected in our casework. We know that the Government is failing adolescents and children across Scotland. We see that in our inboxes.”
“There is a price to be paid for this Government’s failure, and that price falls on the heads of those who are most unable to pay it. That is why the Labour Party is happy to support the motion, which our amendment seeks to strengthen by calling on the Government “to publish data on the number of patients with neurodevelopmental conditions who are being removed from CAMHS waiting lists.” We know there is a real danger that children and adolescents are falling through the gaps and that the current data collection is not able to accurately capture the situation.”
“That is not meant to be just an abstract numerical target. It is supposed to mean security of funding for mental health practitioners; the end of waiting times that are measured in months and years rather than weeks; and a Scotland where support is available for those who need it, not just those who can afford private healthcare, where children’s mental health is a priority, not an afterthought, and where getting it right for every child is the reality. Let us remember that real people are affected by the Government’s failure. We know that people with ADHD are five times more likely to attempt suicide and that self-harm is higher in those with ADHD and emotional dysregulation. Every delay in diagnosis and every failure to intervene early is a decision that might lead to far worse outcomes for the individual who is involved.”
“Even though the Covid pandemic devastated Scotland’s already overstretched mental health services, we find ourselves in a position in which funding is still not being allocated properly to realise best value, waiting lists keep growing, private diagnoses are increasing unnecessarily and service after service is cut across Scotland, with the buck passed to local authorities and ministers washing their hands of the situation. We need to recognise that we did not build back better. Indeed, it has just been crisis followed by crisis, leading to more broken lives and distressed families across Scotland. A point that we often forget when we talk about funding and percentages is what the Scottish Government’s goal of spending 10 per cent of NHS funding on mental health services and 1 per cent of its funding on CAMHS is supposed to mean.”
“I thank the member for Edinburgh Western for allocating one of his party’s official Opposition day debates to a motion about the inadequate provision for neurodevelopmental conditions in Scotland. I know that our constituents’ access to mental health services is an issue that is close to the heart of many members across the chamber and is one that is reflected in our casework. It is a matter of fact that this Government has overseen a decline in mental health service quality across the country—and, given the amendment that it has lodged, it seems that it is unwilling to address and remedy that. We are rightly concerned about the state of mental health services.”
“Neil Gray: Mr Sweeney will be aware, as I set it out in my initial answer to Liz Smith, that it is the responsibility of individual boards to ensure that their public affairs and complaints teams are adequately resourced. Overall, the number of complaints has fallen 7 per cent to 33,273 from a position of 35,000 in 2022-23. However, although the overall number of complaints has reduced, I recognise that the complexity of some cases means that, sometimes, it takes longer for them to be investigated and responded to. However, the position that I put to Liz Smith with regard to my expectation of complaints teams handling complaints quickly is paramount. Long-term Conditions Framework 5.”
“What we have just heard about is not a one-off. Complaints that should be taking 20 working days to handle are now being measured in months, not days. That adds extra distress to patients who have had a poor experience with the NHS, compounding their stress and turmoil and reducing even further their confidence in the health service. It also leads to greater burnout in the NHS patient complaints team, as lack of adequate staffing levels leads to backlog and overworking. Does the cabinet secretary agree that many NHS boards need to allocate more funding to their complaints teams? If so, will he commit the Scottish Government to making sure that all NHS boards’ patient complaint teams have adequate staffing levels to reduce the backlog?”
“I will allow a moment for members on the front benches to get organised for the next item of business. Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report 2025”
“It is a good thing that the UK has reached an agreement that it and the EU will work together, and that the EU will give access to that fund to defence contractors in the UK, which may very well be in Scotland. That is a good thing. We need to contribute to the common security of our continent, given the scale of the threat that faces us. The Scottish Government will, of course, work right across all the areas of the agreement to work out what advantage can be secured, notwithstanding the downsides, which I have updated the chamber on. However, defence and security should be a priority for all of us. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement on the Scottish Government’s response to the outcome of the EU- UK summit on 19 May.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree with Charles Woodburn, the chief executive of BAE Systems—which is the largest single manufacturing industrial employer in Glasgow and the wider west of Scotland—who described the deal as a positive step forward for both EU and UK security? Will the Scottish Government work with the UK Government to support Scottish defence contractors to bid for the €150 billion-worth of export contracts under SAFE—security action for Europe? Angus Robertson: For the uninitiated, the background around the agreement is that the European Union has put aside a very significant fund to invest in defence, given the scale of the challenge that we face as a continent.”
“The Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland is a new independent office-holder that was established under the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland Act 2023 and it will be supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The commissioner will advocate for systemic improvement in the safety of healthcare in Scotland and will promote the importance of the views of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of healthcare. The commissioner will conduct formal investigations into possible safety issues and gather, analyse and report on information from patients and members of the public about safety concerns. It will report its findings to the”
“Presiding Officer, as a member of the cross-party selection panel that you established under the Parliament’s standing orders, I am delighted to speak to the motion in my name and invite members of the Parliament to agree to nominate Karen Titchener to His Majesty the King for appointment as the inaugural Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland. The cross-party selection panel was chaired by you, Presiding Officer, and the other members were Colin Beattie, the member for Midlothian North and Musselburgh; Emma Harper, a member for South Scotland; Gillian Mackay, a member for Central Scotland; and Brian Whittle, a member for South Scotland.”
“I recall the difficulty that we had back in 2019, when I was a member of the House of Commons, in trying to navigate the Brexit situation. I received a very robust apprenticeship in parliamentary politics when Parliament was trying to navigate the Brexit dilemma after the country had voted to leave the EU in a very simplistic, binary way. We had to work out how to distil that down into a workable set of proposals. There were a number of indicative votes.”
“Even today, the leader of the Conservatives at Westminster continues on the same tracks, by indulging in hostile rhetoric about the European Union to fire up the party’s Eurosceptic base and vowing to rip up the forthcoming deal with the EU, even though she has not seen the detail of that, as it is at a Government-to-Government stage. I hope that further collaboration will emerge. I am just glad that those vandals are no longer in charge of what is going on. Just as we have seen from the Conservatives, we have also seen what I feel are rather unfair attempts to manipulate for political convenience the relationship that the Labour Government is trying to build with Europe. It is trying to forge deeper and stronger ties on a bilateral basis.”
“The Conservative Government’s approach was hugely damaging— as well as being damaging for our economy and the businesses that rely on exporting to our number 1 trading partner, it led to falling living standards, a deep frustration that improvements were not possible and, in working-class communities in particular, a deep alienation that persists to this day. All parties have not been honest enough about the trade-offs that are required to overcome the challenges that this country faces. The handling of the so-called Brexit trilemma and the cobbled-together, threadbare deal that Boris Johnson’s Administration arrived at undoubtedly harmed the Scottish economy, and repairing that damage will take some time.”
“Three promises were made as a result of the Brexit proposition: that we would leave the single market and the customs union; that we would have no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and that we would have no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It was impossible to achieve all those things. In effect, a border, in all but name, was put down the Irish Sea. That is how the previous UK Government cobbled together a Brexit deal. It covered its obnoxious, wrong-headed and illogical approach with hostile rhetoric about the European Union. There is no doubt that the EU was a useful scapegoat for the previous UK Government’s woeful handling of issues at home, not least the appalling and destructive austerity programme that it introduced in 2010.”
“There are instances in which that is still very important and, if we impede any of that, the net effect is that it causes problems for our common prosperity. That is why it remains logical that we continue to remove barriers to trade, where possible, at every level, whether that is by building better infrastructure locally or improving our trading relationships internationally. I found the whole period when the previous Conservative UK Government was in power utterly obnoxious—it frequently used hostile rhetoric about the European Union and blamed Europe in an abstract sense for the challenges of trade disruption, inflation and labour shortages that followed Brexit, which was, when we boil it down, based on an utter lie and an impossible trinity of issues.”
“If we distil it down, that is the essence of what the European project has been about since the end of the second world war. Stephen Kerr: Paul Sweeney is making a good point about trading goods, but the UK economy is largely now a service economy. Because of the age that we live in, the delivery of services is not now contingent on proximity, because we have the means to span the world through a Zoom call or other technological means. It is not entirely true to say that trade is restricted, particularly in this economy, by geography. Paul Sweeney: The member makes a fair point in some respects. Nonetheless, significant and important parts of our economy are contingent on the export of and trade in goods. Similarly, a lot of services rely on physical interaction—for example, healthcare provision requires physical interaction.”
“I share the sentiment that has been expressed across the chamber that our European neighbours are essential for Scotland’s trade, security and defence. That is why I was pleased that, as soon as Labour came into government last July, genuine and sincere effort was made to begin the hard task of resetting our relationship with our closest neighbours. It has always been fairly axiomatic to me that the biggest determinant of trade is geographic proximity. That is quite an obvious deduction. It is easier to do trade with someone who is across the street than it is with someone who is on a different continent, and the same logic applies at a national level. Reducing the frictions and impediments to undertaking that trade is mutually beneficial for our common prosperity.”
“Does the minister agree that it is a matter of regret that Transport Scotland asked Network Rail to abandon full dual tracking of the line, which would have enabled a turn-up-and-go frequency of four trains an hour? That will not be achievable on a single-track route. Fiona Hyslop: The member will be aware that there was thorough analysis of capacity and performance, and it was determined that, rather than double tracking the whole route, the operational benefits could be delivered by the 1.4km extension of the existing double-track section. Rather than spending a disproportionate amount of scarce funds on double tracking the whole route, there has been prudent and wise investment planning, which has resulted in a similar output at a much lower cost.”
“I politely suggest that the board is ultimately accountable for ensuring that the leadership team delivers, not just according to key milestones, but to the timetables that are provided and to budget. It is right and proper that I communicate with the board directly and robustly, but the board is also accountable for who serves in primary leadership roles in order to deliver the results that we want to see, which is the Glen Rosa serving the island communities, as the Glen Sannox is currently doing.”
“Perhaps there is an issue with the chairman continuing to sack directors and chief executive officers without proper management handovers or a proper understanding of the trade-offs and difficulties that the programme is enduring. Kate Forbes: The member raises an interesting point. We will all know of the immense pressure on the Government and Ferguson Marine to deliver the Glen Sannox—quite rightly, because it was overdue, it had been delayed and island communities were relying on it. I am pleased and relieved that the Glen Sannox is now serving our island routes, but Ferguson Marine’s letter is quite clear that that meant that all focus was on the Glen Sannox, to the detriment of the Glen Rosa. The member also asked about the actions of the chair of the board.”
“I commend Graeme Thomson as an excellent appointment. I worked with him on the delivery of HMS Duncan in 2012, and he is a very competent programme director. The issue is that, fundamentally, the yard is driven by milestone payments, and a big milestone payment was the delivery of the Glen Sannox. It was known as long ago as October that, in order to deliver the Glen Sannox, the yard had to cannibalise parts from the Glen Rosa and put man hours from the Glen Rosa into the Glen Sannox. Is it not the case that trade-offs have to be accepted, given the complex nature of the programme? That the Government, as the main shareholder, is not sighted on those issues is a problem.”
“It will preserve a strategically important Scottish business in Aberdeen, with a headquarters with around 5,000 people and a global network that will allow Scottish leadership to be sustained in the sector. It is a no-brainer. I encourage ministers to seriously investigate options and engage with the Scotland Office and UK Government colleagues to pursue the opportunity before it is too late. 17:18”
“The Government stepping in and offering reassurance to the Wood Group’s core lenders would relieve the pressure on the company and allow it to be better placed to resist the takeover. The Government would have plenty of options as a result, such as seeking an equity share in the company or even a non-executive director position, and it would allow the company to maintain its strategic headquarters and independence as a Scottish company. In time, the legacy contracts from the acquisition of Amec Foster Wheeler will expire, the company’s share price will recover, it will return to the FTSE 250 and the Government will redeem a significant premium on its investment.”
“If its takeover happens, there is a very high chance that the Aberdeen headquarters will close down because a second UK base will not be required, and that would mean that shared global functions such as finance, human resources and information technology would be transferred to Dubai. We have seen all too many examples of the so- called branch plant economy in Scotland. If the Scottish Government is serious about a just transition, it needs to look at options to step in and save the Wood Group. There is a practical way to do that. The Wood Group currently owes around $1.1 billion to lenders and around £800 million in net cash and bank accounts. Its current crisis stems from the need to refinance that borrowing by quarter 4 of 2026.”
“That has opened up an asset-stripping takeover opportunity for Sidara—a smaller engineering consultancy that is based in Dubai—which came in last year with a £1.5 billion offer for the company. It has now returned, marking the offer down by 85 per cent to just £242 million for the larger Wood Group. That takeover would be strategically inept, and the Scottish and UK Governments should take action to support the Wood Group’s board to resist it due to the company’s strategic importance to Scotland and the UK. It is one of the UK’s primary engineering resources for renewables, carbon capture knowledge and North Sea decommissioning. Sidara has a global headquarters in Dubai and a British head office in London.”
“Although the Wood Group had been very successful in recent years, Amec Foster Wheeler’s heavy liabilities unfortunately left it with significant debts and liabilities. The acquisition was initially viewed as being good for the company due to Amec Foster Wheeler’s experience in oil and gas and in environmental and infrastructure projects, but because it had many contracts at fixed prices, profit margins were wiped out as inflation rose. As a result, the Wood Group has suffered significantly. The reduced revenue and the liabilities from those old contracts have led to significant weaknesses in the company, which has seen its market value plummet, and £1.4 billion of debt facilities will expire next year, meaning that the company’s share price has crashed and it has fallen out of the FTSE 250.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. The main area that I wish to raise with colleagues across the Parliament is the future of the Wood Group, which is one of Scotland’s largest and most iconic companies. I am surprised that it has not been the subject of more discussion and debate in the country to date. Headquartered in Aberdeen, the Wood Group is one of Scotland’s largest companies and the largest legacy of what we achieved as a nation from the 1970s North Sea oil boom. It has now grown to become one of the most diversified global engineering contractors. It is based across 60 countries, employs 35,000 people and has a global headquarters in Aberdeen that employs 4,500 people. In 2017, the Wood Group acquired Amec Foster Wheeler, which was an American rival, for £2.2 billion.”
“Without that level playing field and a more equal society, despite all our debates, all the proposed safeguards in the bill, my deep respect for the member in charge and his intentions, and my deep respect for my constituents who, fundamentally, do not share my view about the need for a change in the law, I cannot support the bill tonight. 18:24”
“With people who have a learning disability, I campaigned for their rights and for the rights of their family carers. I know how important it was to them to have independence and be valued as a member of society. Yet, in the pandemic, in the darkest medical emergency of this generation, people who have a learning disability told me about the do not resuscitate orders that were signed on their behalf, without their knowledge and without the knowledge of their family. That brought home to me very clearly the fact that people who have a disability are not treated the same as other people in our society. We still do not have answers to why that happened.”
“In the time that is left to me, I will focus on only one of those points—the value that we place on disabled people in our society. Pam Duncan- Glancy outlined her concerns about what the bill will mean in reality for disabled people far more eloquently than I could. However, in my mind at all times in this process there has been an acute sense that we are not debating these measures in an equal society. There is not a level playing field for disabled people, who too often are still seen as—and feel like—a burden. They are too often vulnerable to coercion, even by the very institutions that exist to protect them and all of us. That was brought to my mind all too acutely during the pandemic. For seven years prior to being elected to this Parliament, I worked for a learning disability charity.”
“At all times in this debate, my approach has been to listen and engage and to respect that there are many deeply held views in favour of changing the law and against doing so. Fundamentally, I have tried to come to my own conclusion by interrogating the evidence that has been provided to me, not least by this Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in its stage 1 report. I am very grateful to colleagues for their work in that regard. My conclusions recognise not only the end-of-life experiences that I have heard about, but the concerns that have been raised with me about the bill—principally, the need to protect the rights of disabled people in society, the risk of coercion and, indeed, the potential for extending, via the courts, the scope of assisted dying.”